Argentina can't even put up a flight of fighters now and at least one of their destroyers sank in harbour because it rusted away.
The aircraft carrier of today is nowhere near as vulnerable as the battleship of yesteryear. But the future may see the return of the battleship when railguns and the like increase both the offensive range and defensive capabilities. I also expect drones may develop to the point that they can be launched from much smaller ships and still have the capabilities of current manned aircraft.
Indeed.
A carrier has, or should have, eyes and ears (above and below water) that stretch out far beyond the reach of ship mounted sensors.
Note the should.
In the Falklands conflict, our flat tops had no air early warning coverage.
The Gannets of the previous generation of carrier couldn't operate from the flat tops in service at the time, and we hadn't got round to converting helicopters to that role.
The bean counters thought them a waste of money and it was generally thought the RAF could fulfil that role.
For surveillance, possibly, but to deliver large(ish) amounts of ordinance, I'm not so convinced.
They could be used to direct missiles though.
Laser weapons are more likely for drones over carrying lots of ordinance. Looks like the US will be adding lasers to it's fighter jets (Airwolf was ahead of it's time for a naff 80's tv show)-
Laser-armed fighter jets by 2020, Air Force says - CNNPolitics.com
I'm guessing US Special Forces will get drones that can carry small levels of ordinance for precise operations and be launched discretely, if they haven't already.
Plus drones will still be used as eyes in the sky to find a target then guide a weapon in from a plane or a submarine carrying cruise missiles.
As for the railgun ? I believe the US is planning to have those on it's next generation of Naval vessels which are due to start construction in 2028 or so.
There are times when a couple of aircraft carrying 15,000 - 20,000 pounds of ordinance between them, wins hands down vice a drone with laser weapons and/or a drone illuminating a target with a submarine launched weapon.

There is another dimension or aspect to this subject:
I suppose in-flight refuelling can mean a fighter aircraft can stay up flying for a long time - presumably only limited by the endurance of the pilot to stay awake.
Aircraft capable of refuelling in-flight will mean fighter/bombers can carry out long-range missions without the need for hugely expensive aircraft carriers.
Also, with in-flight refuelling the fighter/bombers can be on target very quickly compared to the slow time taken for a aircraft carrier and supporting flotilla of ships to reach the area of concern. Surely in warfare speed is paramount - 'strike fast, strike sure'.
The US Airforce is working on a variety of UAV's to meet those needs you've outlined above. The Global Hawk is probably what most people know about, it's been a testbed of sorts for UAV technologies. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-usafs-massive-10-billion-global-hawk-uav-was-w-1629932000
Then the US is doing stuff like this in Space -
US Air Force's Mysterious X-37B Space Plane Passes 500 Days in Orbit
As was the argument by the RAF in the late 70s, in that they could project force anywhere in the world, etc.
A carrier can not only be used to attack targets out of the range of shore bombardment, but is also used to provide air coverage to the fleet that it forms part of.
The Falklands showed that the RAF didn't really disable the long range target (there is huge debate around this subject and that depends if you wear light blue or dark blue) and couldn't provide the task force with air coverage.